Rusnac Mara Elena, Gasparik Cristina, Delean Ada Gabriela, Aghiorghiesei Alexandra Iulia, Dudea Diana
Department of Conservative Odontology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Med Pharm Rep. 2021 Jan;94(1):99-105. doi: 10.15386/mpr-1924. Epub 2021 Jan 29.
To assess the color, translucency and masking properties of novel flowable giomers.
Three flowable giomers were used for the fabrication of 1-mm thick samples (n=126) in three different consistencies (Beautifil flow Plus X F00; Beautifil flow F02; Beautifil flow Plus X F03, Shofu Dental Corporation, Japan) and two shades (VITA Classical shade A2 and A3). The relative spectral reflectance was recorded over white, black, C3 (VITA Classical shade C3 simulating a severe tooth discoloration), and a tested-sample colored background. Lightness (L*), and color coordinates a* and b*, Relative Translucency parameter (RTP) and masking capacity of C3 background were calculated; differences in color and translucency were compared with thresholds for perceptibility and acceptability (PT and AT). Statistical analyses used significance tests for paired samples.
All tested materials displayed increased values of L*: for A2 F00=86.16(±0.86), F02=86.39(±0.63), F03=86.40(±0.63); for A3: F00=84.24(±0.58), F02=83.34(±0.3), F03=84.19(±0.4), as well as of RTP: for A2 F00=30.34(±0.88), F02=31.37(±0.94), F03=31.11(±1.15), for A3 F00=29.64(±1.64), F02=30.79(±1.02), F03=30.1(±1.26). For A2 samples, the masking capacity was significantly different for all materials, whilst for A3 there were differences only between F00-F03 and F02-F03.
The tested flowable giomers proved high values of lightness and translucency. The color differences between the materials with the same designation and different consistencies were below the perceptibility threshold in most cases. In addition, the differences in relative translucency parameter ranged between the perceptibility and acceptability thresholds. However, all tested flowable giomers had an unacceptable masking capacity for a dyschromic background.
评估新型可流动玻璃离子聚合物的颜色、半透明度和遮色性能。
使用三种可流动玻璃离子聚合物制作三种不同稠度(Beautifil flow Plus X F00;Beautifil flow F02;Beautifil flow Plus X F03,日本松风齿科公司)、两种色度(VITA经典色A2和A3)、厚度为1毫米的样本(n = 126)。记录在白色、黑色、C3(模拟严重牙齿变色的VITA经典色C3)以及测试样本颜色背景上的相对光谱反射率。计算明度(L*)、颜色坐标a和b、相对半透明度参数(RTP)以及C3背景的遮色能力;将颜色和半透明度的差异与可察觉性和可接受性阈值(PT和AT)进行比较。统计分析采用配对样本的显著性检验。
所有测试材料的L*值均升高:A2色中,F00 = 86.16(±0.86),F02 = 86.39(±0.63),F03 = 86.40(±0.63);A3色中,F00 = 84.24(±0.58),F02 = 83.34(±0.3),F03 = 84.19(±0.4),RTP值也升高:A2色中,F00 = 30.34(±0.88),F02 = 31.37(±0.94),F03 = 31.11(±1.15);A3色中,F00 = 29.64(±1.64),F02 = 30.79(±1.02),F03 = 30.1(±1.26)。对于A2样本,所有材料的遮色能力均有显著差异;而对于A3样本,仅F00 - F03和F02 - F03之间存在差异。
测试的可流动玻璃离子聚合物具有较高的明度和半透明度值。大多数情况下,相同名称但不同稠度的材料之间的颜色差异低于可察觉性阈值。此外,相对半透明度参数的差异介于可察觉性和可接受性阈值之间。然而,所有测试的可流动玻璃离子聚合物对于变色背景的遮色能力均不可接受。